Ongoing adaptive reuse: patterns of heritage resilience before and after COVID-19

Abstract

PurposeThe paper aims to assess the impact and responses to coronavirus disease 2019 in six European heritage labs (Horizon 2020 Framework Programme) selected for their adaptive heritage re-use practices based on participation, self-organisation and self-management. As they are naturally oriented towards building resilient urban systems, the hypothesis is that the co-production of cultural values and places promoted by these projects could create the conditions for equitable perspectives of resilience in the normality of contemporary urban life.Design/methodology/approachThe paper draws on data collected through a survey of six European Living Labs between January and May 2021. The survey results are framed by a literature review that defines adaptive reuse in terms of resilience. The five resilience characteristics described by Judith Rodin (awareness, diversification, integration, self-regulation and adaptability) are used to navigate the literature and organise the survey results.FindingsCombining survey results and insights from the literature, some modes and elements (territorial, social, financial) are presented that contribute to creating the conditions for resilience through adaptive heritage reuse according to community-based approaches. Without claiming to be exhaustive, this evidence should be considered in the design phase of resilience programmes, policies or projects related to cultural heritage.Originality/valueThe concepts of community and resilience are becoming increasingly important in the field of cultural heritage. This paper makes a creative contribution to the ongoing debate by presenting and evaluating the contribution of adaptive reuse practices to resilience building.

Ethics and aesthetics of adaptive heritage reuse in Europe: an introduction to what happens to territories when heritage is touched

“…The openness of AHR projects proposed in this SI is thus instrumental to reinforce the bio-political implications of the heritage processes, aimed at sustaining urban-human change while protecting life through dynamic processes of conservation (Pulcini, 2013). As the reaction to COVID-19 has shown, the mobilization of living reuse processes might be an effective antidote to keep thriving under global disasters, contributing to create resilient urbanities (Fava, 2022a, b). Rethinking conservation through the lens of care ethics turns the spotlight on the hidden part of conservation work.…”

Assessing the Long-COVID Impact on Heritage Organisations

“…Based on the ICOM survey on 7 May 2020, within two months of COVID-19 being declared a pandemic, 95% of museums across 107 countries had closed [26] and had to cancel and postpone cultural activities [13,27]. The cancelations included practices such as rituals and ceremonies [28] and wider programming of events and festivals [29,30]. The disruption to physical visitation weakened the user's connections, leading to loss of authenticity [29].…”

“…A rebalance is needed of physical and digital in all aspects of heritage management; research, planning, and operations [30]. Walmsley proposes 'regenerative modes of working.…”

“…The significant development of collections digital engagement was not initiated during but before the pandemic [44]. The physical restrictions, however, became an accelerator for digital technologies adoption [24,71,142] and opportunities for 'digitization and transmission of knowledge' [30] (p. 1).…”